Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - Dr Pete Merola Does TZM support "Conspiracy Theories"? - Page 2

[ Add Tags ]

[ Return to General Discussion | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 20:29
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Muertos wrote:

Everybody knows what a conspiracy theory (non-legal definition) is.

Not so. The term "conspiracy theory" has many shades of meaning. For example, Ed's definition of "conspiracy theory" ("stupid unfounded illogical irrational claims of conspiracies"), which seems to be the sense in which the term is used by most people here on this message board, is apparently not the definition found in the leading dictionaries. On dictionary.reference.com I found the following, from the Random House dictionary:

1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

And, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

n. A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

Muertos wrote:

The tinfoil hatters know full well that they're conspiracy theorists

Not if "conspiracy theory" is understoood as meaning "stupid unfounded illogical irrational claims of conspiracies." Nobody thinks of one's own beliefs as "stupid unfounded illogical irrational."

Debunkers did not invent the term "conspiracy theory."

Would you happen to know who did invent the term, and its history?

#31 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 20:35
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

So in your opinion does Peter Joseph Merola support Conspiracy theories Diane ?

Ignoring his recent protectionist claims not to.

#32 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 20:35
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

lofihigain wrote:

When you had truther leanings, do you think that it would have helped you to understand the "other side" if they didn't use the term "conspiracy theory"?

I had more than just vague "truther leanings." I delved deeply into arguments both for and against. I spent a lot of time reading the websites of both advocates and opponents of 9/11 inside job claims. And, for at least half a year, I was a regularly-attending member of New York 9/11 Truth.

I deeply distrusted those debunkers who relied heavily on ridicule and other rhetorical ploys. The one debunking site that I always took most seriously, from day one, was 9/11 Myths -- which, although it does use the term "conspiracy theory," nevertheless has a civil and rational tone overall. Thanks to this site I always understood, from day one, that a lot of "inside job" advocates were, at the very least, overstating their case.

However, the 9/11 Myths site did not address the specific inside-job arguments that I personally found most convincing. If more of the other debunker sites, addressing other issues, had a similarly civil and rational tone, I might have been convinced sooner that there is no real evidence for an inside job.

Every now and then I still discuss 9/11 with inside job believers. I know that if I were to adopt the typical rhetoric of "conspiracy theory" debunkers, most of these people would just stop listening to me, period. The term "conspiracy theory" itself is one aspect of that rhetoric.

I had vague CT leanings at one point myself, and the use of the term as a pejorative actually helped me to snap out of it.

This sounds to me like you were convinced against "CT's" primarily via social pressure rather than via rational argument. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) It also sounds like your "CT leanings" were never more than very "vague" in the first place.

Argument via social pressure (e.g. by portraying one's opponents as freaks) has always struck me as a fundamentally dishonest strategy. Not only that, but it just doesn't work in the long run, at least not against a determined opponent, though it might seem to work fine in the short run.

I feel this way, in part, because of my background in the GLBT rights movement. Back in the late 1970's, the religious right wing tried to quash the feminist and gay rights movement by calling themselves the "Moral Majority" and by portraying the GLBT community as a bunch of total freaks. The GLBT rights movement nevertheless gained a lot of strength and respectability since then, although the religious right wing still has not totally lost the ability to appeal to the inarticulate homophobia of many ordinary folks.

#33 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 20:39
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

anticultist wrote:

So in your opinion does Peter Joseph Merola support Conspiracy theories Diane ?

Ignoring his recent protectionist claims not to.

It is my opinion that Zeitgeist does promote both (1) grand conspiracy ideology and (2) unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing.

I refrain from using the term "conspiracy theory" simply because I consider it to be unproductive in dialogue.

#34 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 20:41
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

Diane the above definition you got from dictionary.com is clearly just being kind. However it still says crazy all over it, it just says it in a nice way.

"the products of secret plots"

If you look at something a little more forthcoming than just a dictionary, you find stuff like this:

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#cite_note-Barkun_2003-0</p>

"any fringe theory",
"a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning"

I know its Wiki, but I'm pretty sure any encyclopaedia will say the same kind of thing.

Bottom line is Peter knows what it means and just objects to it because we're saying he is believing in something stupid. Instead of simply saying something like "its not a conspiracy theory its a fact!" He decides to play semantics games and try to say that "conspiracy theory" is not really a negative term.

#35 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 20:43
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

However, the 9/11 Myths site did not address the specific inside-job arguments that I personally found most convincing.

Such as?

And what convinced you those arguments were wrong if not 9/11 Myths?

#36 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
lofihigainPosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 20:58
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

Diane, I don't think argument via social pressure is dishonest if the original claims made are so absurd to begin with. When I encountered ridicule, I was forced to ask myself, "can this many people be this wrong about reality? Are they only opposed to my theories because they are afraid to acknowledge the truth (sheeple)?"

when someone casually calls you crazy, and as an afterthought at that, chances are that you are crazy, or at least have crazy ideas.

so, it had something to do with social pressure for me, I ALWAYS had a problem with the word "sheeple"...the idea itself was one of the things that drove me away from the ideology. A sheep (a close friend, a smart guy) called my ideas loony, and at that moment, I snapped out of it. Only after that was I able to consider rational debate.

Most truthers have to snap out of it before they are able to weigh ideas. Dishonest or not, it worked for me.

#37 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 22:14
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Ed quoted me as saying:

However, the 9/11 Myths site did not address the specific inside-job arguments that I personally found most convincing.

Ed replied:

Such as?

And what convinced you those arguments were wrong if not 9/11 Myths?

Regarding the main such argument -- the one that got me into the topic in the first place -- please see the thread The "symmetry of collapse" argument. I can discuss more about the evolution of my beliefs some other time.

On a related topic, please see also the thread To Ed: When you were a 9/11 Truther.... I would be very interested in your reply.

#38 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 22:32
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

lofihigain wrote:

Diane, I don't think argument via social pressure is dishonest if the original claims made are so absurd to begin with. When I encountered ridicule, I was forced to ask myself, "can this many people be this wrong about reality?

That many people can easily be wrong. When I was growing up, overt homophobia was very commonplace even among educated people. And, to this day, it's still commonplace among the uneducated and among religious fundamentalists.

Are they only opposed to my theories because they are afraid to acknowledge the truth (sheeple)?"

Depends on whether they can give an articulate, coherent, rational reason for their beliefs. In my experience, most people have lots of irrational prejudices for which they cannot give coherent reasons.

when someone casually calls you crazy, and as an afterthought at that, chances are that you are crazy, or at least have crazy ideas.

In a fundamentalist-dominated town, apostates are often considered to be even worse than crazy. Doesn't mean the apostates are wrong.

so, it had something to do with social pressure for me, I ALWAYS had a problem with the word "sheeple"...the idea itself was one of the things that drove me away from the ideology.

I have a problem with the word "sheeple" too -- because, like the term "conspiracy theorist," it is (in my experience) counterproductive to rational dialogue between people of different points of view.

#39 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 22:59
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

"Depends on whether they can give an articulate, coherent, rational reason for their beliefs."

Precisely why I label Truthers as nutbars by definition. They cannot give articulate, coherent, rational reasons for their beliefs. EVER.

Name one Truther who can give "articulate, coherent, rational" reasons for being a Truther. Hint: "Nick Levin" is NOT the right answer.

Belief in a 9/11 conspiracy is per se irrational. It rests on no factual basis whatsoever. Even the "LIHOP Lite" theory that you seem to enshrine above all else as the epitome of "rational" discourse from Truthers--which, I might add, I have yet to see in practice--rests upon a fundamentally irrational basis: that somebody, somewhere in the government would think it's a good idea to stand by and do nothing while 3,000 innocent Americans are slaughtered wholesale, and that they convinced enough other officials in the government to be able to get away with it.

That is not rational. Period. You cannot have a "rational dialogue" with people who are not rational. Trying to do so is like trying to negotiate with religious fundamentalists. You can't do it.

#40 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 23:08
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Ed wrote, quoting one of the dictionary definitions of "conpsiracy theory":

the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

This is actually a description of what I call "grand conspiracy ideology," which is only a subset of what is commonly called "conspiracy theory."

Ed then quoted Wikipedia's definition:

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1]

This confirms my point about the ambiguity of the term, because of the way it has evolved in meaning. Ed then singled out the phrase "any fringe theory." To me the term "fringe" clearly pertains to popular prejudice rather than rational argument.

The Wikipedia article also says:

The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.

This is exactly why the term "conspiracy theory" is counterproductive in dialogue. It inevitably gives rise to the above-described kind of dispute, which is a distraction from looking at the actual facts, evidence, and relevant epistemological principles.

The Wikipedia article also says:

In the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media. [...] According to anthropologists Todd Sanders and Harry G. West, "evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans today…gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories."[4] Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

#41 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 00:07
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

To Muertos:

Although you apparently can't see it, I do consider Nicholas Levis's (a.k.a. JackRiddler's) posts in the September 11 forum of Democratic Underground to be quite rational (although a lot of other posters there strike me as either nuts or hoaxters).

Another good example is Arcterus. I'm thinking of trying to get into a dialogue with him sometime later, probably this summer.

Also, many of the folks who post in the TruthMove forum seem fairly rational in the way they think (although I consider some of their conclusions to be very wrong).

Note: I am not necessarily endorsing any of the actual opinions of these people. Most though not all of these folks believe in the WTC demolition idea. But these people are certainly not incapable of rational thought, by any means.

#42 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 02:52
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

Diane responded to my question with:

>>It is my opinion that Zeitgeist does promote both (1) grand conspiracy ideology and (2) unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing.

I refrain from using the term "conspiracy theory" simply because I consider it to be unproductive in dialogue. <<

zeitgeist didnt make itself and its group & webpage didnt magically appear from thin air. Peter J Merola made it all happen. So if zeitgeist does ergo Peter Joseph Merola does.

#43 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 07:33
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

anticultist wrote:

So if zeitgeist does ergo Peter Joseph Merola does.

Or at least he did, at the time he made it. Supposedly his opinions have changed to at least some extent since then, but I have not yet dug deep enough into his current opinions, or his current behavior regarding Zeitgeist, to know how much his opinions have really changed. That's why I confined my comment to Zeitgeist itself, which I do know about.

#44 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 08:04
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

This is exactly why the term "conspiracy theory" is counterproductive in dialogue. It inevitably gives rise to the above-described kind of dispute, which is a distraction from looking at the actual facts, evidence, and relevant epistemological principles.

Irrelevant. That's not what Peter is saying, Peter is saying the term Conspiracy Theory doesn't really means what it means. Instead of just saying, no, the conspiracies discussed in the films are not conspiracy theories they are based on sound factual evidence we get some pseudo-intellectual redefinition of what "conspiracy theory" means.

#45 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 08:07
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Although you apparently can't see it, I do consider Nicholas Levis's (a.k.a. JackRiddler's) posts in the September 11 forum of Democratic Underground to be quite rational (although a lot of other posters there strike me as either nuts or hoaxters).

Another good example is Arcterus. I'm thinking of trying to get into a dialogue with him sometime later, probably this summer.

Also, many of the folks who post in the TruthMove forum seem fairly rational in the way they think (although I consider some of their conclusions to be very wrong).

Nick Levin, again??? I've seen posts, articles and websites by Nick and he is just your typical truther. Ignorant, incompetent and stubborn. Just what do I have to show you to make you see he is not someone you want to be touting as a credible rational person?

Truth Move is even worse and still a hotbed for all your wacky conspiracy theories on 911, the only good thing you'd said about it is that it doesn't like the no planers or space beams. Well hooray!

#46 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 08:12
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Regarding the main such argument -- the one that got me into the topic in the first place -- please see the thread The "symmetry of collapse" argument. I can discuss more about the evolution of my beliefs some other time.

Did you happen to read Ryan Mackey's paper on Griffin?

http://www.911myths.com/images/playlists/dulles_security/Microsoft_Word__drg_nist_review_1_1.pdf</p>

I am curious as to why you said you didnt want to ask on the JREF? Were you banned or something? Or are you a well known truther there and they don't like you?

On a related topic, please see also the thread To Ed: When you were a 9/11 Truther.... I would be very interested in your reply.

I did notice, I will get to it. I'm busy, I just get roped into stuff again.

#47 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 10:09
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Ed wrote:

Nick Levin, again???

Nicholas Levis, not Levin.

I've seen posts, articles and websites by Nick and he is just your typical truther. [...]

Truth Move is even worse and still a hotbed for all your wacky conspiracy theories on 911

Again you are focusing on their beliefs themselves, not the people and their thought processes. These people are not crazy -- or, at least, no crazier than the average person. Look at the way they think and communicate, rather than just the content of their beliefs.

Regarding the thread To Ed: When you were a 9/11 Truther...., you wrote:

I did notice, I will get to it. I'm busy, I just get roped into stuff again.

I'm especially curious about your own history because of your insistence that any and all 9/11 Truthers are ipso facto not just wrong but insane and incapable of rational thought. Aren't you, thereby, judging yourself rather harshly, given that you were once a 9/11 Truther yourself?

Did you happen to read Ryan Mackey's paper on Griffin?

I did read an early version of that paper. As soon as I printed it out, the first thing I did was to look for what it had to say about the "symmetry of collapse" argument. It did not address that issue in a way that actually, directly engaged the popular intuition and explained what was wrong with it. I don't remember exactly what it did say, but among other things, it dealt with the "symmetry" argument for WTC 7 merely by referring back to what it had to say about the "symmetry" argument for WTC 1 and WTC 2, for which my intuitions at the time were very different because of the very different ways that these buildings collapsed.

I am curious as to why you said you didnt want to ask on the JREF? Were you banned or something? Or are you a well known truther there and they don't like you?

My main reason is neither of the above. As I said, it's personal.

I was never banned there. It's true that I was a "well known truther" there back in late 2007 and early 2008, but some of the folks there (including even Pat Curley) always perceived me as relatively rational. Back then I had a blog on which I interacted with several JREFers and managed to have productive conversations with them by imposing strict rules on their behavior.

In response to my earlier statement:

This is exactly why the term "conspiracy theory" is counterproductive in dialogue. It inevitably gives rise to the above-described kind of dispute, which is a distraction from looking at the actual facts, evidence, and relevant epistemological principles.

You wrote:

Irrelevant. That's not what Peter is saying, Peter is saying the term Conspiracy Theory doesn't really means what it means.

Peter is saying that he rejects the use of the term "Conspiracy theory," and his stated reasons are, indeed, closely related to my own. As the FAQ page says:

So before the said question is answered, let it be understood that the merit of any idea should be based on the evidence available, scientifically analyzed in an objective way... not dismissed because the idea is contrary to the traditional, prevailing world views and values.

(Again, I certainly don't think that Zeitgeist itself is "based on the evidence available, scientifically analyzed in an objective way," but I do agree with the above point.)

Instead of "conspiracy theory," I would recommend the following two, much more precise terms, which cover different aspects of what is commonly called "conspiracy theory": (1) grand conspiracy ideology and (2) unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing.

#48 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 10:43
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

Jeez. Debunking sure has become complicated since Diane got here, hasn't it? I'm not allowed to call Dr. Babs with her pink hair and her Star Wars space beam theory a raving lunatic, I have to advocate for a new 9/11 panel to waste taxpayers' money investigating nothing and searching for documents that don't exist, and I can't even use the words "Conspiracy Theory." All in the name of "dialogue" with Truthers and so I don't look "biased and irrational."

I would recommend the following two, much more precise terms, which cover different aspects of what is commonly called "conspiracy theory": (1) grand conspiracy ideology and (2) unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing.

Neither of these terms are precise, and the distinction doesn't make sense in any event. You hate what you call "grand conspiracy ideology" as much as we hate all conspiracy theories, and you've expended great effort here to try to convince us that getting in bed with Truthers, coddling them and letting them spew their ridiculous bullshit theories is somehow "the lesser of two evils" and is somehow productive in defeating "grand conspiracy ideology."

I am also amused by the frequency with which you suggest that the nuttier Truthers out there, the ones who do wallow in the crazy with their space beams and such, are "hoaxters" the way Dr. Zaroff and I have occasionally hoaxed the conspiracy crowd. This indicates to me not only a fundamental failure on your part to understand how the conspiracy underground works, but also a desperate desire to exonerate conspiracists and apologize for their more egregious excesses in favor of talking up people like Nick Levis--whose only difference with the obvious nutbars lies not in what he believes or the conclusions he endorses, but the 50-cent words he uses to try to explain his ridiculous theories. By that logic I can see why you want to give Merola a pass.

I'd like to hear Edward's thoughts on changing the name of his website to "Unfounded Allegations of Government Wrongdoing Science." That kind of has a ring to it, doesn't it?

#49 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 11:29
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Nick Levis says:

"When I met Roberts on the street last S11, I took his number and seriously considered challenging him to a debate - for about 5 minutes. Just too much of a lightweight, and me too much of an intellectual snob. Why should I beat on him, and what would I prove once I did?"

Douchbag.

You say focus on how he acts not what he believes? Well he ACTS like a idiot, Diane.

Lets see some more of this wonderful Nick guy.

Nick argues there was no "scooped out" damage and WTC7, says it fell in free fall and that it fell perfectly and you can see squibs:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x57997

Nick makes the "missing trillions claims:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x92233#92329

In response to some new person he suggests they look into Nafeez Ahmed, Michael Ruppert, Webster Tarpley promotes his own stupid website promoting more lies Justicefor911.com calling it "the most important initial focus". Promotes Jim Hoffman and his websites (wtc7.net, 911review.com) and that he is "convinced of UA 93 shootdown"

He also say says...

"Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan otherwise present the best work on NIST and bomb theories."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x144893

Nick also is reported to have said this:

"Nicholas Levis of NY911truth.org, an advisor on the poll, agrees, "The 9/11 Commission gave us a plenty of 'recommendations'..... What about the unexplained collapses of WTC 7"

http://www.wethepeoplewethemedia.com/zogby.htm</p>

There much more as this isn't even taking into consideration that he was one of the co founders, apparently, of 911truth.org and the stuff on his websites Justicefor911 and SummerofTruth which comes out with just about every claim in the book.

So once again I still have absolutely no idea why you like the guy, why he is credible or why we should take him seriously.

He is at best ignorant, incompetent and arrogant. Just because he might be more sane than some other truthers is really not saying much.

#50 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 11:36
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

And I still dont understand what you don't you understand about the "symmetry of collapse". What did you expect to happen? The thing to fall over like some kind of cartoon tree? Unlike your favourite truther Nick claims it didn't fall into its own footprint in a perfect free fall fashion. We have absolutely no reason to think explosives of any sort were used and what he calls squibs are blinds billowing in the wind, they don't look anything like actual squibs.

The fact is truthers that even consider explosives after they have been told why its nonsense really ARE stupid or insane. For example, absolutely no one suffered any injuries consistent with explosives, that single thing alone should be enough to tell them they are wrong,

#51 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 12:57
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

To Ed: About the "symmetry of collapse" argument, I later DID come to understand why it wasn't valid. Again, please see the thread about The "symmetry of collapse" argument. However, Ryan Mackey's explanation (at least in the version of his paper that I downloaded back then; maybe he has improved it since then) did not address the issue the way I (mis)understood it at the time.

If you want to discuss this matter further, let's please do so in the relevant thread.

More later.

#52 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 13:12
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Muertos wrote:

I'm not allowed to call Dr. Babs with her pink hair and her Star Wars space beam theory a raving lunatic

The "Star Wars space beam theory" is not representative of the beliefs of most 9/11 Truth activists. None of the more reasonable people in the movement endorse it.

I have to advocate for a new 9/11 panel to waste taxpayers' money investigating nothing and searching for documents that don't exist

Obviously, you don't "have to advocate for" something you don't believe in.

However, there are even quite a few "9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers" who would not agree with your rejection of the idea of a more independent follow-up to the 9/11 Commission. When I was on Democratic Underground back in 2008, nearly all the debunkers conceded that a new investigation was a good idea; they just weren't interested in setting a positive example of how to advocate for one. Ditto for Chip Berlet, as quoted in the 2006 Washington Post article The Disbelievers.

To me, it seems self-evident that the 9/11 Commission's unfinished job should get finished. And, for any debunker who does agree with that idea, setting a positive example would be a great way to open a dialogue.

Regarding my distinction between grand conspiracy ideology and unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing, you wrote:

You hate what you call "grand conspiracy ideology" as much as we hate all conspiracy theories, and you've expended great effort here to try to convince us that getting in bed with Truthers, coddling them and letting them spew their ridiculous bullshit theories is somehow "the lesser of two evils" and is somehow productive in defeating "grand conspiracy ideology."

My recommendation is not that 9/11 debunkers do exactly what I am doing, focusing just on grand conspiracy ideology while de-emphasizing any critique of other unfounded claims. The point of my distinction between grand conspiracy ideology and unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing is not that people shouldn't oppose the latter. Different people have different priorities, and that's fine. If you prefer to specialize in debunking 9/11 claims, that's fine.

However, whatever your priorities might be, breaking the perceived problem of "conspiracy theory" down into smaller, more precisely-defined parts -- rather than lumping it all together as one big undifferentiated mass -- will make dialogue a whole lot easier between people of different points of view. Another thing that will make dialogue easier is finding whatever common ground you honestly can with the person you are talking to. The latter is just basic human psychology.

I hope I've clarified my position.

Why does my distinction between grand conspiracy ideology and unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing not make sense to you?

I am also amused by the frequency with which you suggest that the nuttier Truthers out there, the ones who do wallow in the crazy with their space beams and such, are "hoaxters" the way Dr. Zaroff and I have occasionally hoaxed the conspiracy crowd.

I don't know how many of them are hoaxters. I don't claim that all of them are hoaxters, although I do suspect that at least some of them are. What I do know is that there is a qualitative difference between them and other 9/11 Truthers.

I don't understand why you insist on ignoring what to me is a glaringly obvious difference. I can only guess that you are doing so as part of the common human tendency to lump all of one's perceived enemies into one box.

This indicates to me not only a fundamental failure on your part to understand how the conspiracy underground works

And the basis of your implied claim of superior knowledge of how the "conspiracy underground" works is ...?

but also a desperate desire to exonerate conspiracists and apologize for their more egregious excesses in favor of talking up people like Nick Levis--whose only difference with the obvious nutbars lies not in what he believes or the conclusions he endorses, but the 50-cent words he uses to try to explain his ridiculous theories. By that logic I can see why you want to give Merola a pass.

What you see as a "desperate desire to exonerate" is simply a refusal to demonize and dehumanize.

And, no, I am not proposing that Edward change the name of his website (whose name does not contain the phrase "conspiracy theory" to begin with), although I do think it would be an improvement to his site to categorize different kinds of "conspiracy theories," with somewhat different approaches to each kind.

#53 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 13:39
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

My recommendation is not that 9/11 debunkers do exactly what I am doing, focusing just on grand conspiracy ideology while de-emphasizing any critique of other unfounded claims. The point of my distinction between grand conspiracy ideology and unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing is not that people shouldn't oppose the latter. Different people have different priorities, and that's fine. If you prefer to specialize in debunking 9/11 claims, that's fine.

Yes think I get what you are trying to say Diane, unfortunately you promoted Truth Move and people like Nick Levin as some kind of credible respectable sources, when in fact they are TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE examples of such people. Therefore I have no choice but you wonder what your motives really are and what you're really saying.

#54 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 14:24
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

To Ed: I'd really prefer not to have further discussion with you about 9/11, or about the 9/11 Truth movement, until after you've told me (as requested in this thread) your story of how you became a 9/11 Truther, how you were eventually dissuaded, and how you felt about your dealings with both Truthers and debunkers during the time when you were a Truther.

As I said earlier: I'm especially curious about your own history because of your insistence that any and all 9/11 Truthers are ipso facto not just wrong but insane and incapable of rational thought. Aren't you, thereby, judging yourself rather harshly, given that you were once a 9/11 Truther yourself?

In the meantime, just a brief comment about Nicholas Levis vs. Mark Roberts: I should point out that Mark Roberts varies quite a bit in how he presents himself. Back in 2007, his posts in the JREF forum made an extremely bad impression on me. But then, when I saw him on a DVD of his "Hardfire" debate with the Loose Change kids, he made a much better impression on me, and indeed played a key role in helping me to understand what was wrong with the "symmetry of collapse" argument. Also, Nicholas Levis's encounter with Mark Roberts apparently took place back in September 2006, when Roberts was -- if I'm not mistaken -- fairly new to 9/11 debunking. If so, it's understandable why he might have been perceived as a "lightweight."

#55 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 14:30
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Ed wrote:

unfortunately you promoted Truth Move and people like Nick Levin as some kind of credible respectable sources,

In our discussions here, I never promoted them as sources regarding 9/11. I presented them only as examples of people who are capable of dialoguing in a reasonable manner, in response to your and Muertos's claim that people in the 9/11 Truth movement are ipso facto incapable of rational dialogue.

#56 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 14:38
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Re: Mark Roberts and 2007 - Look how many threads he started on 911 in 2006:
http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=425216&pp=25&page=4

The fact is Nick is a douchbag too arrogant to debate Mark properly yet complains that he only debates crazy people.

#57 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 14:40
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

I presented them only as examples of people who are capable of dialoguing in a reasonable manner,

No you didn't you presented them as being credible and rational. You brought Nick up in a thread dealing with legitimate questions about 911 using him as a good example of a truther that asks legitimate questions. Its really annoying you now moving your goal posts like a typical truther Diane.

#58 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 16:00
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Ed wrote:

You brought Nick up in a thread dealing with legitimate questions about 911.

Wrong. I brought him up in the thread on Different sectors of the 9/11 Truth movement. Subsequently you, not I, brought him up in the thread on Legitimate topics for a follow-up to the 9/11 Commission.

using him as a good example of a truther that asks legitimate questions

In the post where I first mentioned him, I said nothing about his "questions." I was replying to Sky, who had written:

In MY experience, the more "agnostic" type 9/11 truthers who really just want a new investigation are usually morons who have been duped by the more hardcore truthers who would believe in a conspiracy no matter what.

I brought Nicholas up as a counterexample to the above statements. Nicholas takes an agnostic stance but is intelligent (not a moron) and not a dupe (he was a pioneering leader). In the post where I first mentioned him, I said nothing about the questions in the 2004 petition, many of which are out-of-date, as I subsequently conceded here.

Edit: Ed wrote:

Re: Mark Roberts and 2007 - Look how many threads he started on 911 in 2006:
http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=425216&pp=25&page=4

I can't read that page because I'm not a member of the JREF forum. Anyhow, the question most relevant to how new he was in 2006 is not how many threads about 9/11 he started in 2006, but, rather, when he started his first thread about 9/11.

#59 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 16:36
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

Diane, you ARE moving the goalposts.

Nicholas Levis does not seem to be taking an "agnostic" stance. In the examples Ed posted, he's clearly pushing controlled demolition claims. Whenever Truthers talk about WTC7 they're talking about controlled demolition by definition, because obviously WTC7 was not hit by a plane. The other examples Ed posted show him as a very typical run of the mill Truther.

This Arcterus person you brought up clearly says this on his blog:

I endorse the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Enough said. This person supports an irrational conclusion completely unsupported by any facts. This person is not rational. He's a bona fide conspiracy nutbar.

Diane, what I think is that you're confusing the way people present their arguments with the substantive validity of the argument they're presenting. As long as a person uses big words and pretends to sound authoritative, you don't seem to give a damn how loony the folderol that they're trying to sell you is.

People like this Arcterus, indeed, represent the most dangerous and offensive of conspiracy theorists, because a lot of people, especially young people (the kind who get duped by Loose Change and Zeitgeist), probably will assume that such a well-spoken person must know what they're talking about. This is precisely why Peter Merola is such a flash point. People believe him because he sounds authoritative. Yet Arcterus and Peter Merola both believe:

1. A secret conspiracy in the government decided affirmatively that murdering thousands of innocent people was a terrific idea.
2. This secret cabal successfully wired the world's largest office buildings with colossal amounts of explosives, without being seen or detected.
3. This secret cabal got 19 Arab patsies to hijack planes and fly them into the buildings to pretend that it was a terrorist attack, and were able to successfully coordinate 2 plane strikes with the detonation of these secret explosives.
4. Since 9/11, not a single person involved with this colossal plot has blown the whistle, gotten cold feet or screwed up even ONCE, and not one single mistake was made leading to the discovery of the plot, 9 years later.

And you think this is rational because Arcterus soft-pedals this bullshit to you instead of cramming it down your throat? He's still pissing on the graves of the 3,000 victims of 9/11, is he not?

Looking at Dr. Babs's space beams blog, at least you know right off the bat that she's got more screws loose than Home Depot in an earthquake. At least she's ham-fisted enough to be utterly incapable of dressing up her lunacy in any words remotely capable of being taken seriously by rational people. Arcterus is far more dangerous than she is, because he actually sounds at first blush like he knows what he's talking about, even though he reaches the same nutbar finish line that all Truthers, by definition, endorse.

THESE are the people you like and admire? Really? Because they're better at spinning their geysers of bullshit than nimrods like Jason Bermas or Killtown? What are we supposed to take away from a "dialogue" with these people, and how does it benefit me or anyone (except them) to pretend that the conclusions they endorse are even remotely acceptable as a matter of logic and reason?

#60 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]